1 2025:CGHC:44050 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 105 of 2023 The New India Insurance (Correct Name Is Assurance) Company Limited Branch Durg, Regional Office, Gurunank Nagar, Station Road, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Insurer versus 1 - Nandini Kurre Wd/o Late Yashwant Singh Kurre Aged About 40 Years Occupation. R/o Village Lalpur, Post Office Hardi, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 2 - Suhani Satnami S/o Late Yashwant Singh Kurre Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Lalpur, Post Office Hardi, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 3 - Isha Satnami S/o Late Yashwant Singh Aged About 16 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nandini Kurre, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Office Hardi, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 4 - Kohinur Kurre S/o Late Yashwant Singh Kurre Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nandini Kurre, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Office Hardi, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 2 5 - Patra Bai Satnami W/o Dadan Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Lalpur, Post Office Hardi, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 6 - Ramchandra Chandrakar S/o Sewaram Chandrakar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Singhola, Chowki Sargi, Police Station Lalbag, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-08-L-2333) (Non Applicant No.1) 7 - Narendra Pal Singh Bhatiya S/o Mahendra Singh Bhatiya R/o Shrishti Colony, Kamla College Road, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-08-L-2333) (Non Applicant No.2) ... Respondents For Appellant :Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents 1 - 5 :Ms. Kusum Lalchandani on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 :Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29.08.2025 1. The appellant (Insurance Company) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 01/10/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 109/2021 whereby compensation of Rs. 40,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of 3 respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants after deducting Rs. 22,00,000/- on account of contributory negligence of the deceased and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit though the Claims Tribunal has found the plea of contributory negligence proved against the deceased, yet only Rs. 22,00,000/- has been deducted from the total compensation amount of Rs. 62,00,000/-, however, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the amount i.e. Rs. 31,00,000/- and as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants be reduced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation which does not warrant any interference by this Court, accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 4 5. A careful perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant (Insurance Company) before the Claims Tribunal would show that no express plea of contributory negligence has been taken by them and only a half-hearted plea has been raised and no evidence has either been led in this regard, however, the Claims Tribunal, having held that possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be ruled out, proceeded to deduct Rs. 22,00,000/- from the total compensation of Rs. 62,00,000/-. Since no express plea of contributory negligence has been taken and no evidence has been led by the appellant (Insurance Company) before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, at this stage of the appeal, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal cannot be reduced as only on the basis of guess work, the Tribunal has deducted Rs. 22,00,000/- for which respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants have not preferred any appeal. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet